.&GIII RLY City of Beverly Hills Planning Division 455 N. Rexford Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90210 TEL. (310) 285-1141 FAX. (310) 858-5966 Design Review Commission Report Meeting Date: Thursday, September 3, 2015 Subject: Project Applicant: DKG Development LLC Recommendation: Conduct public hearing and provide the applicant with an approval. REPORT SUMMARY The applicant is requesting approval for a revision to a previously approved Design Review Permit granted to construct a second story addition and façade remodel to an existing one-story single-family residence in the Central Area of the City, north of Santa Monica Boulevard. The proposed style is identified by the applicant French Revival Style; however, since the project does not adhere to a pure architectural style, the project is before the Commission for review. DESIGN ANALYSIS Based on a review conducted by the Urban Design Team, the overall design appears to be internally consistent; however the garage door may be better suited to be a rectangular shape to deemphasize the garage opening. In addition, the panel element below the windows is not carried through to the windows above the garage door and which could help also to draw attention away from the garage. Staff has not included project-specific conditions of approval related to these comments but the Commission may wish to consider these comments during their review and analysis of the project. It should be noted that a new landscape plan has also been submitted for approval. The landscape plan sheets are not consistent with each other and it is not clear that the Applicant has included two minimum 48” box evergreen canopy trees in the design. A project-specific condition has been added to the draft approval resolution (Attachment D) regarding this recommended requirement. ZONING CODE COMPLIANCE Applications for design review are preliminarily evaluated for compliance with the zoning code. Applicants are encouraged and have the option of requesting a comprehensive review separate and apart from this application. Formal compliance review will occur when a building permit application is filed (plan check). The applicant has been advised that changes during plan check may require revisions and subsequent approval from the Design Review Commission or staff, as appropriate. Attachment(s): A. Detailed Design Description and Materials (Applicant Prepared) B. Project Design Plans C. DRAFT Approval Resolution Report Author and Contact Information: Georgana Millican, Associate Planner (310) 285-1121 [email protected]718 North Roxbury Drive (PL1512989) A request for an R-1 Design Review Permit to allow for the construction of a second story along with a façade remodel to an existing one-story single-family residence located in the Central Area of the City north of Santa Monica Boulevard. The Commission will also consider adoption of a Categorical Exemption, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.
Transcript
.&GIII
RLYCity of Beverly Hills
Planning Division455 N. Rexford Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90210
TEL. (310) 285-1141 FAX. (310) 858-5966
Design Review Commission Report
Meeting Date: Thursday, September 3, 2015
Subject:
Project Applicant: DKG Development LLC
Recommendation: Conduct public hearing and provide the applicant with an approval.
REPORT SUMMARYThe applicant is requesting approval for a revision to a previously approved Design Review Permitgranted to construct a second story addition and façade remodel to an existing one-story single-familyresidence in the Central Area of the City, north of Santa Monica Boulevard. The proposed style isidentified by the applicant French Revival Style; however, since the project does not adhere to a purearchitectural style, the project is before the Commission for review.
DESIGN ANALYSISBased on a review conducted by the Urban Design Team, the overall design appears to be internallyconsistent; however the garage door may be better suited to be a rectangular shape to deemphasize thegarage opening. In addition, the panel element below the windows is not carried through to thewindows above the garage door and which could help also to draw attention away from the garage.Staff has not included project-specific conditions of approval related to these comments but theCommission may wish to consider these comments during their review and analysis of the project.
It should be noted that a new landscape plan has also been submitted for approval. The landscape plansheets are not consistent with each other and it is not clear that the Applicant has included twominimum 48” box evergreen canopy trees in the design. A project-specific condition has been added tothe draft approval resolution (Attachment D) regarding this recommended requirement.
ZONING CODE COMPLIANCEApplications for design review are preliminarily evaluated for compliance with the zoning code.Applicants are encouraged and have the option of requesting a comprehensive review separate andapart from this application. Formal compliance review will occur when a building permit application isfiled (plan check). The applicant has been advised that changes during plan check may require revisionsand subsequent approval from the Design Review Commission or staff, as appropriate.
718 North Roxbury Drive (PL1512989)A request for an R-1 Design Review Permit to allow for the construction of a secondstory along with a façade remodel to an existing one-story single-family residencelocated in the Central Area of the City north of Santa Monica Boulevard. TheCommission will also consider adoption of a Categorical Exemption, pursuant to theCalifornia Environmental Quality Act.
Design Review Commission Report455 North Rexford Drive
September 3, 2015
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTThe subject project has been reviewed pursuant to the provisions set forth in the CaliforniaEnvironmental Quality Act (CEQA — Public Resource Code Sections 21000, et seq.), the State CEQAGuidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15000 et seq.), and the city’s local CEQAGuidelines. The subject project is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) ofthe State CEQA Guidelines in that the project includes the review of building design, colors and materialsto the façade of the building, front yard landscaping or minor low-scaled accessory structures, such asfences or walls. It can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the subject activity couldresult in a significant effect on the environment.
Prior to the filing of the original Design Review application for the project, the existing single familyresidence on the site was reviewed and found to be a potential historic resource designed by a partylisted on the City’s Master Architect list (Paul Laszlo). Pursuant to BHMC §10-3-3218, any work involvinga change in design, material, or appearance proposed on a property forty five (45) years or older anddesigned by a person listed on the city’s list of master architects shall be subject to a thirty (30) dayholding period prior to the issuance of permits. If, after the expiration of the final period of time to act,the City Council has not taken an action on the application or initiation to designate, then any pendingpermit(s) may be issued and demolition, alteration, or relocation of the property may proceed (BHMC§ 10-3-3217). Since no action was initiated to designate the subject property within the 30-day holdingperiod, the subject property is not considered to be a historic resource in the City of Beverly Hills.
PUBLIC OUTREACH AND NOTIFICATIONThe project requires mailed public notice within 100 feet of the subject property, along with the blockface, be mailed, and an on-site notice at the subject property be posted, ten (10) days prior to thehearing. The public notice for this project was mailed on Friday, August 21, 2015; the site was posted onFriday, August 21, 2015. To date staff has not received comments in regards to the submitted project.
Design Review Commission Report455 North Rexford Drive
September 3, 2015
Attachment A
Detailed Design Description
and Materials (applicant prepared)
City of Beverly Hills- Design Review ApplicationPage 3 of 13
SECTION 2— PROJECT DESCRIPTION I ZONING INFORMATIONA Indicate Requested Application:
Track 1 Application (Administrative Review)• Project must adhere to a pure architectural style identified in the City’s Residential
Design Style Catalogue. The Catalogue is available online at:http://www.beverlyhills.org/cbhfiles/storage/files/filebank/3435--Residential%2ODesign%2OCatalog%2OMay%202008.pdf
• Plans must be prepared and stamped by an architect licensed in the State of California.• Three (3) sets of plans required (see Section 6 for plan size requirements).
Track 2 Application (Commission Review)• Eight (8) sets of plans required (see Section 6 for plan size requirements).• Public Notice materials required (see Section 5 for public notice requirements).
B Briefly describe the architectural style(s) that you are proposing and how the proposedmaterials, finishes and proportions aid in achieving the style(s):
This is a French revival style using smooth stucco, conc. moldings, stone veneer at the entry, arched topwindows, wrought Iron balcony railing and slate mansard roof are used to achieve the style.
C Identify the Project Zoning (City Zoning Map available online at http://gis.beverlyhills.org/)
R-1 R-1.5X2 R-1.8XR-1X R-1.6XR-1.5X R-1.7X
D Site & Area Characteristics
Lot Dimensions: irregular 83.5 X 179.49 Lot Area (square feet): 14,990 sf
Adjacent Streets: Lomitas Ave. & Elevado Ave
E Lot is currently developed with (check all that apply):
jJ Single-Story Residence U Two-Story Residence
El Guest House I1 Accessory Structure(s)
Li Vacant L1 Other:
_______________________________________
F Are any protected trees located on the property? (See Beverly Hills Municipal Code Section 10-3-2900)?Yes NoIf YES, provide the following information:
Quantity Sizes Reason for Removal
Heritage:
Native:
Urban Grove:
G Has the existing residence been designed by a notable architect or is it identified on anyhistoric resource inventory, including the City of Beverly Residential Survey? (available online at:http://www.beverlyhilts.or/citygovernment/departments/communitvdevelopment/planning/historicpreservation/historicresou rces)
Yes No If yes, please list Architect’s name:
________________________________
Updated 4/8/2015
City of Beverly Hills- Design Review ApplicationPage 4 of 13
SECTION 3— PROJECT DETAILS AND MATERIALS (continues on next page)A Describe your public outreach efforts to adjacent neighbors and property owners:
The owner has contacted all adjacent neighbors and also the neighbors on the other side of the street
B Indicate the project zoning details pursuant to Beverly Hills Municipal Code Section 10-3-2400:Code Regulation Allowed By Code Existing Condition Proposed Condition
28-0’ 28-0” 28-0”22-0” 22-0’ 22-0”7,496 sf 4,132 sf 7,476 sf
45’ 55.9’ 55.875’
S/ 7-6” S/ 6-0” S/ 7’-6”@2nd FIr.
N/W 11-6” N/W 9.25’ N/W 12’-0”@2ndF4 2 4
C List the specific materials and finishes for all the architectural features of the project (Be Specific):FACADE (List all material for all portions visible from the street)
Material: Plaster, Conc. Moldings, Metal Awning, Clad Windows, Stone VeneerTexture /Finish: Smooth StuccoColor/Transparency: Cold Grey, Gray Tinted Glass
WINDOWS (Include frame, trim, glass, metal, etc)Material: Wood windows with aluminum cladTexture/Finish: Smooth AluminumColor/ Transparency: Dark Gray! Tinted Gray Glass
Color/Transparency: Dove Gray to match Main Building
OTHER DESIGN ELEMENTSMaterial: N/ATexture /Finish:
Color / Transparency:
D Describe the proposed landscape theme. Explain how the proposed landscapingcomplements the proposed style of architecture:
_________________________
Landscape proposed theme follow old classical European / French style with combination of gray & earthtones to complement this French Revival style of architecture and clean cut hedges to add a charm to thewhole composition.
Updated 4/8/2015
City of Beverly Hills- Design Review ApplicationPage 6 of 13
SECTION 4— DESIGN ANALYSIS AND FINDINGSA Clearly identify how your project adheres to each of the required findings of the Design
Review Commission:
1. Describe how the proposed development’s design exhibits an internally compatible designscheme.
The architectural style of the building is French revival and it’s characteristics are, dark gray slate roof,wrought Iron railing on the balcony with round top french doors. Painted Metal awning at the entry door andstone veneer at the front facade furthermore enhances the European style architecture.
2. Describe how the proposed development’s design appropriately minimj es the appearance ofscale and mass, how the design enhances thearden like quality of the”iWnd appropriatelymaximizes the use of required open space within the proposed_architecjatsT.
The proposed design minimized the appearance of mass by pushing the entry way in and creating an entrycourt with elegant entry steps with landscaping on both sides.
3. Describe how the proposed_development will enhance the appearance of the neighborhood.
This french designed house with smooth style stucco and quality concrete molding and warm looking balconywith french doors and ornamental wrought iron railing designs bring the same of the charm that existsthroughout the City of Beverly Hills.
4. Describe how the proposed development is designed to balance the reasonable expectation ofthe development for the owner with the reasonable expectation of privacy of the neighbors.
The proposed design uses kind of plants in a style that secures the feel of privacy for the owner andrespecting the neighbor’s privacy as well.
5. Describe how the proposed development respects prevailing site design patterns, carefullyanalyzing the characteristics of the surrounding group of homes and integrates appropriatefeatures that will ensure harmony between old and new.
This style of the architecture with simple design elements was implemented by studying the existing types andstyles of single family residences throughout the neighborhood to ensure that there was a harmony among theexisting and this new proposed building.
Updated 4/8/2015
SUSAN HEALY KEENE, MCP I Director
PA] PATEL I City Building Official
RYAN GOHLICH I City PlannercBEVER LV)\HILLS/
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
455 North Rexford Drive, l’ Floor
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Tel. (310) 285—1141
www.beverlyhills.org
CERTIFICATE OF DESIGN COMPLIANCE
I certify that the
City of Beverly Hills,4, Section 4, of Title
design and documentation of the Water Efficient Landscape located atcomplies with all the provisions of
Water Efficient Landscaping, Ordinance Number 09-0-2574, as codified in Article9 of the City of Beverly Hills Municipal Code.
Wet Signature of Licensed Landscape Date
C:\Users\cgordon\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\ContentOutlook\Z3GQCH7H\Water Efficient Landscape Affidavitdoc; rev.3/30/20 10
Attachment BProject Design Plans
Design Review Commission Report455 North Rexford Drive
NOTE: SEE SHEETS LI .5 & LI .6 FOR IMAGES OF PLANTS
dI
—In
LIA
DWILALandscap. ArchItects
1216 Elm Street
Venice, CA 90291
Phone: 310-827-2064
Fax 310-827-4634
-“s
I -
jli !tI—..’-._-4 I
‘r-’ ]‘i5
0
C10
Lu
zu
s -‘
ULuOa,>
P1.1.4101. 411
DlT. 00
Cloa.dln
z0I
w-JwIz0L1
L1.f
LtLzNL7
D ECO-STAR MAJESTIC SLATE1 MIDNIGHT GREr
D EXTEIO LIGHT FIXTURES T LAMP PLUSPIISIAN SFUARE 24U HIGH AGED FEWTE
D ALUMINUM CLAD WOOD WINDOWS PELLAACHITECTUAL SEIES-ENDURACLADCOLOR lON OE
WOUGI-1T IRON RAILING FAINT TO MATCHWINDOWS
ENTRr DOOR Y IMA CONSTRUCTION, INC.
[ METAL AUNING, FAINT TO MATCH WINDOWS
2 SANDSTONE DESIGNS CONC. MOLDINGS*3 CLOUD GRAY
RAIN SUflER FAINT To MATCN FRECAST CONC.M0LINCS
] LA HARA EXTERIOR SMOOTH STUCCO FINISH•40 DOVE GRAY t) BASE 200
EAST ELEVATIONSCALE=/S2”=I’-O” HALIQUEST STONE GENEVA BLEND
50U114 ELEVATIONSALE=3/S2 I-C”
LEEN
D EGO-STAR MAJESTIC SLATEMIDNIGHT GREY
2 SANDSTONE DESIGNS CONG. MOLDINGS*35 CLOUD GRAr
L1 RAIN GUTTER FAINT TO MATCI1 FRECAST CONGMOLDINGS
LA HARA EXTERIOR SMOOTH STUCCO P1MO DOVE GRM ((o,) EASE 200
EXTERIOR LIGHT FIXTURES T LAMP PLUS 5PRISIAN SPUARE 24 HIGH AGED PEUJtER
ALUMINUM CLAD WOOD WINDOWS PELLAARCHITECTURAL SERIES-ENDURACLADCOLOR IRON ORE
DI WROUGHT IRON RAILING FAINT TO MATCHWINDOWS
ENTRI DOOR 6 IMA CONSTRJCTION, INC.
METAL AU.NING, PAINT TO MATCH WINDOWS
[]HALIQUEST STONE GENEVA BLEND
9EI LJEf
COLOR FLFVAIIONN.T.S.
z
-F1
A2.03
FESECIIV VIEW OF 114E FOOE? EIPENC
Attachment CDRAFT Approval Resolution
Design Review Commission Report455 North Rexford Drive
September 3, 2015
RESOLUTION NO. DR XX-15
RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION OF THE CITY OFBEVERLY HILLS CONDITIONALLY APPROVING A REVISION TO A PREVIOUSR-1 DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A SECONDSTORY AND A FACADE REMODEL TO AN EXISTING ONE-STORY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AT THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 718 NORTHROXBURY DRIVE (PL1513 188).
The Design Review Commission of the City of Beverly Hills hereby finds, resolves and determines
as follows:
Section 1. Behzad Attaie, agent, on behalf of DKG Development LLC, property owner
(Collectively the “Applicant”), has applied for a revision to a project that was previously granted an R-1
Design Review Permit for design approval of a second story addition and façade remodel to an existing
one-story single-family residence for the property located at 718 North Roxbury Drive which is located in
the city’s Central R-1 Zone.
Section 2. Beverly Hills Municipal Code Article 44, Chapter 3 of Title 10, authorizes the
Design Review Commission the authority to approve, approve with conditions or deny design-related
aspects of projects located in the city’s Central R-1 zone, subject to findings set forth in Beverly
Municipal Code Section 10-3-4415.
Section 3. Prior to the filing of the original Design Review application for the project, the
existing single family residence on the site was reviewed and found to be a potential historic resource
designed by a party listed on the City’s Master Architect list (Paul Laszlo). Pursuant to BHMC §10-3-
3218, any work involving a change in design, material, or appearance proposed on a property forty five
(45) years or older and designed by a person listed on the city’s list of master architects shall be subject
Page 1 of 7
to a thirty (30) day holding period prior to the issuance of permits. If, after the expiration of the final
period of time to act, the City Council has not taken an action on the application or initiation to
designate, then any pending permit(s) may be issued and demolition, alteration, or relocation of the
property may proceed (BHMC §10-3-3217). Since no action was initiated to designate the subject
property within the 30-day holding period, the subject property is not considered to be a historic
resource in the City of Beverly Hills and the processing of the pending demolition permit may proceed.
The subject project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA — Public Resources
Code §21000 — 21178), pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines in that the
project includes the review of building design, colors and materials to the façade of the building, front
yard landscaping or minor low-scaled accessory structures, such as fences or walls. The subject project
has been reviewed pursuant to the provisions set forth in the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA— Public Resource Code Sections 21000, et seq.), the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of
Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15000 et seq.), and the city’s local CEQA Guidelines. The subject project is
exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines in that
the project includes the review of building design, colors and materials to the façade of the building,
front yard landscaping or minor low-scaled accessory structures, such as fences or walls. It can be seen
with certainty that there is no possibility that the subject activity could result in a significant effect on
the environment. It can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the subject activity could
result in a significant effect on the environment.
Section 4. The Design Review Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on
September 3, 2015 at which time oral and documentary evidence was received concerning the
application.
Page 2 of 7
Section 5. Based upon the evidence presented at the hearings, including the staff
report(s), oral and written testimony, the Design Review Commission hereby finds as follows with
respect to the R-1 Design Review Permit:
A. The proposed development’s design exhibits an internally compatible design scheme in
that the project’s proportions, form, fenestration, scale, mass, color and materials are representative of
the architectural style and design scheme chosen for the building. These design elements, including
existing or proposed landscaping, paving, or perimeter fencing or walls are internally compatible and
consistent with the overall design.
B. The proposed development’s design appropriately minimizes the appearance of scale
and mass and enhances the garden like quality of the city and appropriately maximizes the use of
required open space within the proposed architectural style. Specifically, the project, as conditioned,
complies with applicable provisions of the municipal code that regulate overall building size, height,
scale and mass. Additionally, the building provides appropriate building modulation and uses window
and other design components that minimize the visual bulk and mass. The garden quality of the city is
maintained through appropriately proportioned paving in the required front yard and with the
incorporation of existing or proposed plant material of appropriate sizes that complement the
architectural style and help reduce overall mass and scale.
C. The proposed development will enhance the appearance of the neighborhood in that
the new construction has been designed in context to the appearance, mass and scale of adjacent
properties and other properties in the neighborhood. The project includes the use of high quality
building materials and appropriately uses colors and design ornamentation that is appropriate to the
Page 3 of 7
neighborhood. Existing or new planting will promote the garden quality image and appearance of the
city, consistent with city goals and existing mature landscaping in the neighborhood.
D. The proposed development is designed to balance the reasonable expectation of
development for the owner with the reasonable expectation of privacy of neighbors. The City’s zoning
regulations set forth maximum building height and mass standards with which this project, as
conditioned, conforms. The project is being constructed in an urbanized environment and has other
adjacent and nearby residences. To provide a reasonable expectation of privacy, the Design Review
Commission, reviewed the placement of windows on the subject and adjacent properties, considered
the location of private outdoor areas and evaluated the projects proposed and neighbors existing
landscaping. Accordingly, based on this review, and as conditioned by this resolution, the project
balances reasonable expectations for privacy and development.
E. The proposed development respects prevailing site design patterns, carefully analyzing
the characteristics of the surrounding group of homes, and integrates appropriate features that will
ensure harmony between old and new. Specifically, the project has been designed with an internally
compatible architectural theme and is modulated in a manner that respects privacy and scale of
development to adjacent properties. The project design, proportionality and landscaping is compatible
with other properties in the general vicinity and the project reinforces a cohesive streetscape. In its
review the Design Review Commission carefully studied the proposed project in context to adjacent
properties and conducted individual site inspections or reviewed photographs of the surrounding group
of homes.
Page 4 of 7
Section 6. Based on the foregoing, the Design Review Commission hereby grants the
request defined in this resolution subject to the following conditions:
Project Specific Conditions
1. A consistent landscaping plan for the front yard shall be required which includes at least two
evergreen canopy trees, of a minimum 48” box size, subject to review and approval by the
Urban Design staff.
Standard Conditions
2. Design Approval. Project approval is for the design-related aspects of the project only. No
approval is implied or granted with regard to applicable city zoning or technical codes, which
may require review and approval from other city commissions or officials.
3. Compliance with Municipal Code. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall
demonstrate compliance with all applicable provisions of the city’s municipal code and
applicable conditions imposed by any discretionary review approval.
4. Compliance with Special Conditions. Any special conditions that require approval by the
director of community development, or designee, shall be submitted to the staff liaison to the
commission within fourteen (14) days of approval or prior to submittal of the plan check review
application, whichever is greater.
5. Project Rendering. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall incorporate into the
building permit set of plans, an updated color rendering of all building facades that are visible
from the public street. The quality and detail of the rendering shall be subject to approval from
Page 5 of 7
the Director of Community Development, or designee, and shall include sufficient design
information to evaluate project compliance during construction.
6. Approval Resolution. A copy of the signed resolution of approval shall be scanned onto the
cover sheet(s) of the building permit set of plans.
7. Substantial Compliance with Approved Plans. The director of community development, or
designee, shall determine if changes to the approved project are in substantial compliance with
the commission’s action. This determination shall be subject to applicable fees and charges. A
substantial modification to the approved project requires approval from the Design Review
Commission.
8. Covenant Recording. This resolution approving an R-1 Design Review Permit shall not become
effective until the owner of the Project site records a covenant, satisfactory in form and content
to the City Attorney, accepting the conditions of approval set forth in this resolution. The
covenant shall include a copy of the resolution as an exhibit. The Applicant shall deliver the
executed covenant to the Department of Community Development within 60 days of the
Planning Commission decision. At the time that the Applicant delivers the covenant to the City,
the Applicant shall also provide the City with all fees necessary to record the document with the
County Recorder. If the Applicant fails to deliver the executed covenant within the required 60
days, this resolution approving the Project shall be null and void and of no further effect.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Director of Community Development may, upon a request
by the Applicant, grant a waiver from the 60-day time limit if, at the time of the request, the
Director determines that there have been no substantial changes to any federal, state, or local
law that would affect the Project.
Page 6 of 7
9. Validity of Permits. The rights granted by this approval shall remain valid for three (3) years
from the date of approval, unless extended pursuant to Beverly Hills Municipal Code Section 10-
3-207.
10. Appeals. Decisions of the Design Review Commission may be appealed to the Planning
Commission within fourteen (14) days of the final action by filing a written appeal and paying
appropriate fees with the City Clerk.
Section 7. The Secretary of the Design Review Commission shall certify to the passage,
approval, and adoption of this resolution, and shall cause this resolution and its certification to be
entered in the administrative record maintained by the community development department.
Section 8. Decisions of the Design Review Commission may be appealed to the Planning
Commission within fourteen (14) days of the final action by filling a written appeal and paying
appropriate fees with the City of Beverly Hills City Clerk.
Approved as to Form and Content: Adopted: September 3, 2015
Ryan Gohlich, Commission Secretary Arline Pepp, ChairpersonCommunity Development Department Design Review Commission
